Help/Advice buying nikon slr

[elearn07]

Hello,

I am returning to the slr market after many years, and after frequent frustration using my digital point and shoot camera.

I am considering purchasing the factory model Nikon D200 body through Cameta. I would like to move beyond the Nikon D80 and get a slightly better quality camera. I will purchase the lenses separately.

I am looking for recommendations for lenses. :confused:

I have been recommended a 18 - 55 mm and 55 - 200 mm lense(s). I am seeking advice about what lenses make and models have a high quality rating?

How will I use my camera


shoot family - children in-door at family get togethers and out-door like at soccer games from the sideline.
photograph buildings, and various nature settings when hiking

I think that I am leaning towards purchasing used (or factory) lenses as I will be able to get better value - and allow me to afford a decent quality lense to go with my camera. [/INDENT]


Option

If you know of someone considering selling a Nikon D200 or even D80 camera and compatible lenses please have them contact me.

Thanks.

Scott

[r3g]

Whats is your budget? You can get away with the 18-55 for buildings but not for soccer or indoor shooting unless you use flash (maybe get an sb400 or sb600 to go with it?). The VR 55-200 will be great for soccer assuming youll be able to get the coverage you want with 200mm.

[fionndruinne]

Seems to me if you can get your hands on a D200, you should get some better glass for it. The lenses you're looking at, while good as budget lenses go, won't let you get the very best out of your camera, I think.

[Stoller]

You can't go wrong with either the D200 or D80. If you shot action like soccer games the 5fps with the D200 is an advantage.


I have been recommended a 18 - 55 mm and 55 - 200 mm lense(s). I am seeking advice about what lenses make and models have a high quality rating?

You will want a faster lenses for low light conditions (family no flash) and action shots (soccer) than these two lenses. I've been there done that, but we have to start somewhere. To get started you might save a little and get by with the 18-135, my wife uses one on our D50. I'm amazed at the results she gets sometimes and she does not have to switch lenses. Save some now for better glass later. I think with any starter glass you will get that I need a better lens itch with either the D200 or D80. :rolleyes:

[erichlund]

Seems to me if you can get your hands on a D200, you should get some better glass for it. The lenses you're looking at, while good as budget lenses go, won't let you get the very best out of your camera, I think.

In RAW, the image quality of the D200 is little different from the D80 or the D40X. They have the same size sensor and same number of pixels. The D200 has advantages over those other cameras in its ability to operate quickly and efficiently, but sensors are nearly identical. So, that statement really doesn't make any sense. If you would want better glass for the D200, then you want better glass for either of the other two cameras as well.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to better glass. I just don't think the statement applies to cameras of equal resolving power. So, he should make his lens purchases based what he wants to achieve, and the lenses that meet those needs. If that requires more expensive glass, then so be it, but not just because the D200 somehow deserves better glass.

As far as the OP's question, those lenses are adequate to decent for general use. The are not the fastest lenses made, but they won't break the bank, so they are a good family lens choice. If you are looking for top quality, then you might want to look into faster glass, like the 17-55 f/2.8. However, be prepared to pay handsomely for professional quality glass, because there is one true constant, Nikon Pro glass does not come cheap. If your budget doesn't allow, Cameta carries Sigma, and they have some nice alternatives to Nikkor Pro glass that are much cheaper, while being only slightly compromised relative to the Nikkor pro glass. For instance, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro.

[K1W1]

You will want a faster lenses for low light conditions (family no flash) and action shots (soccer) than these two lenses.

I'm going to be the fourth reply with the fourth differing opinion. That's forums for you. :)

Unless you are shooting at night or in a blizzard or something the 55-200VR works perfectly well for Soccer (check the Soccer pictures thread down the forum a bit). Yes the 70-200VR f2.8 is the ultimate and yes it will give better results than the 55-200VR but unless you have a large credit card limit it will allow you a low cost way of starting your DSLR adventure and will allow to to decide as a result of your experience and interests which way you ultimately want to go.

[XaiLo]

Both the 18-55mm and 55-200mm are capable products and I personally like the way the 18-55mm handles plus it's really light. But I'm going to throw in the 70-300mm VR for consideration moderately priced and a great performer. I also agree it would be a good idea to know what your budget is like. And for $300 another lens I like is the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S. hth

[TheWengler]

Lenses are more important than the body. You might want to distribute your budget accordingly.

[Rooz]

Lenses are more important than the body. You might want to distribute your budget accordingly.

i completely agree.

[K1W1]

I believe that the single most important component in photography is the person behind the camera.
There is no such thing as a crappy lens these days from major manufacturers. All lenses have some sort of limitations it's just that some are more limited than others. A good lens will not make a good photographer but a good photographer can make an ordinary lens look great.

[fionndruinne]

In RAW, the image quality of the D200 is little different from the D80 or the D40X. They have the same size sensor and same number of pixels. The D200 has advantages over those other cameras in its ability to operate quickly and efficiently, but sensors are nearly identical. So, that statement really doesn't make any sense. If you would want better glass for the D200, then you want better glass for either of the other two cameras as well.

Right; I wasn't really talking about the camera sensor, more the size of the investment. Naturally a kit lens won't get the very best out of a D40 either; but at $500 it makes more sense to have a budget lens on the end of it, whereas with a D200, I'd like good glass to begin with. Y'know?

[TheWengler]

I believe that the single most important component in photography is the person behind the camera.
There is no such thing as a crappy lens these days from major manufacturers. All lenses have some sort of limitations it's just that some are more limited than others. A good lens will not make a good photographer but a good photographer can make an ordinary lens look great.

Yes, in the end the photographer is the most important but the TS is buying a camera body/lens setup not a photographer. I assume if he's spending $1500 he wants to maximize the cost/performance ratio of his setup.

[erichlund]

Right; I wasn't really talking about the camera sensor, more the size of the investment. Naturally a kit lens won't get the very best out of a D40 either; but at $500 it makes more sense to have a budget lens on the end of it, whereas with a D200, I'd like good glass to begin with. Y'know?

This only applies if you consider the camera a short term investment. Under that theory, then buy the cheaper camera and get better lenses. Eventually, you will upgrade the camera (near term).

If you consider the D200 a long term investment, then you would not want to buy a D40/80, only to buy the D200 later. I figure my D200 is going to meet my needs until Nikon comes out with a full frame in the same price range ($1500 or so). Even then, the DX has advantages for the long end, so it may serve me for many years after that. As such, I would rather spend the money to get the camera I'm going to use for years and years, and build my lens collection only as I can afford. In fact, this is essentially what I have done. I started with a D200 and a 50mm f1.8. I had to wait for the 18-200VR. Still, though relatively expensive, it's still a kit lens with significant compromises. Eventually, I've added better lenses. I will add more, as I can and need. But, because I bought the camera I wanted, it's now a comfortable tool that I'm familiar with, so that I can actually get the best out of the additional lenses I buy.

[tcadwall]

I tend to agree for this user that the D200 is not a compromise. If you are returning to the SLR world, then you most likely can really appreciate the advantages of a D200 over the rest of the suggested bodies. You probably also understand the value of good glass.

The D200 is VERY capable, and is a very good design. It is rugged, and it has a lot of dedicated buttons, and is very easy to make adjustments. If it were someone looking to get into a SLR for the first time, then the lack of experience would probably mean that I would join the other camp that suggests getting the better glass with a less expensive body and upgrading the body later. Truth is, had I purchased a D200 instead of my D70s, I probably wouldn't be considering the D300 right now. Instead, I would be saving the pennies for pro-glass.

Get the D200 - get the glass you are considering, and a 50mm f/1.8 (~$100 new), and then later, you will be able to decide what needs you still have with regards to lenses.

[fionndruinne]

I wouldn't advise not getting the D200, I just think it'd be advantageous to have good glass for it right off the bat. For instance, think about the 18-55mm range with say a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 as the first lens you pick up, then rather than getting your telephoto at the same time, save up for something good in that range while making do with the 18-50mm.

Of course, it's a bit of a trade-off - you might miss some shots where telephoto was really in order, but at the same time, all your shots from the get-go would be more effective in low light and would have the option of shallow depth-of-field.

I know there've been some shots I've made where I wished I'd had something better in the range of my kit lens, but when it comes to telephoto/macro/super-wide-angle, I just don't think in those terms. I think within the focal range of what I have, and it works out, generally, very well.